The Hidden Victims of the NDPS Act: How Residential Property Forfeiture Affects Families of Drug Traffickers

 Younus M Bhat ✉

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, established in 1985, stands as a cornerstone of India’s legislative efforts to curb the drug trade and mitigate drug abuse within its borders. Central to its enforcement strategy is the practice of attaching and forfeiting properties tied to narcotics trafficking. This practice aims to incapacitate the financial operations of drug networks but also casts a wide net, impacting the families of the accused. This article delves into the ethical and social implications of property forfeiture, particularly its profound impact on the families of individuals convicted under the NDPS Act.

Understanding Property Forfeiture Under the NDPS Act

Under the NDPS Act, the government holds the authority to seize assets believed to be connected with narcotic-related activities. This can include homes, vehicles, businesses, and any financial assets derived from or used in drug trafficking. The legal process for such seizures involves proving the connection of the assets with illegal drug activities, often leading to preemptive attachment even before a conviction is secured. Despite lacking comprehensive public data, reports and court records suggest a significant number of properties are seized annually under these laws, reflecting the Act’s aggressive enforcement.

Impact on Families of Drug Traffickers

The repercussions of property forfeiture extend far beyond the accused, deeply affecting their families. Many families, often unaware of or uninvolved in illegal activities, find themselves suddenly homeless or financially ruined. Case studies reveal instances where families have been forced to live in shelters or depend on relatives, struggling with the stigma and sudden poverty.

Case Study 1: Naseema Begum’s Family

Naseema Begum, a 55-year-old woman from Srinagar, Kashmir, found herself and her family homeless after their home was seized by the police. The family was accused of harbouring militants who were killed during a firefight in Srinagar in September 2020. Begum claimed that the militants may have entered their premises from a neighbouring colony after police conducted a search operation in the area. Despite her family’s denial of any affiliation with militants, their home was seized, and her three sons were jailed on charges of being “militant sympathizers.

Case Study 2: Drug Addiction in Kashmir

While militancy made headlines in Kashmir, drug addiction quietly spiked in the region. The state’s director general of police, Shesh Paul Vaid, revealed that drug seizures have increased, and the number of cases being registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for peddling and smuggling of banned substances, are rising. Between 2014 and August 2017, 118 kg of heroin was seized, and as many as 18,435 drug addicts reported for treatment at the two hospitals associated with the Government Medical College.

The easy availability of drugs and the spread of poppy and cannabis cultivation have contributed to the growing drug menace in Kashmir.

The psychological toll is equally severe, impacting the mental health of spouses, children, and dependent parents, thrusting them into social and economic uncertainty.

Ethical and Human Rights Considerations

The ethical questions surrounding property forfeiture are complex. Is it just to penalize families for the crimes of one member? This practice raises significant human rights concerns, particularly regarding the right to housing and the welfare of children, who may be inadvertently punished for their parents’ actions. Legal experts and human rights activists often criticize these measures, citing violations of fundamental rights and the disproportionate impact on dependents.

Counterarguments and Justifications for Property Forfeiture

Proponents argue that harsh punitive measures, including property forfeiture, serve as potent deterrents against drug trafficking, a crime with far-reaching societal impacts. Law enforcement agencies advocate for these actions as essential tools to disrupt and dismantle drug networks, emphasizing the need for strong penalties to uphold social order and public safety.

Case Studies and Comparative Analysis

Internationally, approaches to property related to drug crimes vary significantly. Some countries focus on punishing the individual without extending penalties to the family, while others have mechanisms in place to shield dependents from undue hardships caused by forfeiture. Comparative studies suggest that less punitive approaches often result in better social outcomes, reducing the societal and familial costs of drug-related crimes.

Countries like Portugal have decriminalized drug use and possession, focusing on treatment and harm reduction, rather than punishment. This approach has led to a reduction in drug-related crimes and improved health outcomes for drug users. In contrast, countries like the United States have strict drug laws, including property forfeiture, which have been criticized for disproportionately impacting minority communities and contributing to mass incarceration.

In the context of Kashmir, the forfeiture of properties associated with militancy or banned Islamist movements has raised tensions and contributed to social unrest. While the authorities may argue that these measures are necessary to combat terrorism and maintain law and order, the impact on families and dependents cannot be ignored.

The forfeiture of properties related to drug crimes under the NDPS Act, 1985, in Kashmir, has led to the displacement of families and the incarceration of individuals on charges of being “drug sympathizers”. This approach, which focuses on punishing the individual and their families, has been criticized for its disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities and its contribution to social unrest.

Possible Reforms and Recommendations

This analysis suggests a need for reforms that balance the imperative to combat drug trafficking with protecting innocent family members. Recommendations include legal provisions to exempt dependent family members from forfeiture penalties, improved judicial oversight to prevent unjust seizures, and enhanced support from social services for affected families.

Conclusion

The enforcement of the NDPS Act through property forfeiture raises critical ethical and social issues, highlighting the unintended consequences on families. It prompts a reevaluation of current practices, advocating for a more humane approach that acknowledges and mitigates the collateral damage inflicted on innocent relatives of the accused. As the government continues to fight drug trafficking, it must also consider the broader social impact of its strategies, ensuring that the battle against drugs does not unjustly devastate the lives of those caught in its wake.